Climate Change Escapism

Originally posted by MacSwain
Hello again. First of all - My last post, when I read it just now..seems caustic in tone, I did not intend that tone and apologize if you found offense for that reason. 🙁

1) For a link - put "Atlantic Conveyor" into your search engine and you will find loads of links.
2) You're incorrect in this post re: water density depending on ice cover and refle ...[text shortened]... tlantic Conveyor cannot be ignored. I will post the Milankovitch Theory for your information.

No worries,
as for the atlantic conveyor in my search engine, I know what it is, but the cycle you mention between arctic ice cover and NAD activity is what I haven't been able to find, and I have looked.
As for point two, sorry if there was confusion, but more ice = more salty water, hence higher density, more ice also equal more reflected sunlight, which affects temperature, and thus water density locally.
I haven't actually proposed a theory, I'm just looking at yours for the moment.

Originally posted by MacSwain
In addition to the Atlantic Conveyor, this supplies an additional 3 items left out of your theory.

The Milankovitch Theory.

The earth’s axis it tilted some 23 ½ degrees. Changes in the "tilt" of the earth can change the severity of the seasons - more "tilt" means more severe seasons - warmer summers and colder winters; less "tilt" means less severe s ...[text shortened]... shrink ice sheets by melting more ice than the amount accumulating during the winter.

Incidentally, this theory was precisely mentioned in all those new scientist links I gave you... specifically this one...
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11650
See the second paragraph on milankovitch cycles and their effect on global warming in the past.
The perihelion existing in January has been around for much longer than recent milder winters by the way.

Originally posted by agryson
Incidentally, this theory was precisely mentioned in all those new scientist links I gave you... specifically this one...
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11650
See the second paragraph on milankovitch cycles and their effect on global warming in the past.
The perihelion existing in January has been around for much longer than recent milder winters by the way.

Ah Yes! NS magazines. After our last discussions, I removed any copies I had, started a small fire and waved a bag of bones over it while reciting arcane incantations. 😛 Can't refer to those any longer! Hope my descration of the "bible" of your religion doesn't cause you to chaff. rofl

Like most anything else..it is never just one contributor in isolation but if the several factors coincide multiplying any result.

Originally posted by MacSwain
Ah Yes! NS magazines. After our last discussions, I removed any copies I had, started a small fire and waved a bag of bones over it while reciting arcane incantations. 😛 Can't refer to those any longer! Hope my descration of the "bible" of your religion doesn't cause you to chaff. rofl

Like most anything else..it is never just one contributor in isolation but if the several factors coincide multiplying any result.

?
You know Bjorn Lomborg? You know one of his supporters, Nigel Calder was an editor of New Scientist? Just because you don't like what it says doesn't mean its science is flawed, be careful when you burn books, you might only be left with pulp fiction. While I know it's meant in good humour and no harm done, when someone gives you a link, the least you can do is glance over it and give it a passing review, I've done the same with all of your posts, it's just manners.

For more on Bjorn Lomborg:
http://lomborg.com/

And for an example of Nigel Calder in New Scientist, see the second paragraph:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg18524861.600-hotly-contested.html

Edit: By the way, both Nigel Calder and Bjorn Lomborg are very skeptical of current climate science. If you had bothered to read my links you would have seen some of Nigel Calders criticisms of the more hippy inspired climate horror stories.

Originally posted by agryson
?
You know Bjorn Lomborg? You know one of his supporters, Nigel Calder was an editor of New Scientist? Just because you don't like what it says doesn't mean its science is flawed, be careful when you burn books, you might only be left with pulp fiction. While I know it's meant in good humour and no harm done, when someone gives you a link, the least you ca ve seen some of Nigel Calders criticisms of the more hippy inspired climate horror stories.

I do read (and have read in past) all links you provide.

My previous post was another (obviously failed) attempt at a bit o' Shaman humor...as it appears religion is the cause celeb these days! 😳
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"and prominent sceptics, including former New Scientist editor Nigel Calder, took up the case."

I think "skeptics" and "former" are the telling descriptors in this statement. NS policing its own! 😏

edits: to add quotes and other stupid bits

Originally posted by MacSwain
I do read (and have read in past) all links you provide.

My previous post was another (obviously failed) attempt at a bit o' Shaman humor...as it appears religion is the cause celeb these days! 😳

No worries, I'm a bit tetchy maybe, have had this atheist nut embarrassing atheists everywhere getting on my nerves.
But you may be interested nonetheless in Nigel Calder. He was the chief editor of New Scientist about ten years ago and now is one of the more respected and vocal AGW sceptics (in fairness, a lot of AGW sceptics are pretty politically motivated). Nigel Calder really does put the science through its paces, but based on the science rather than on knee-jerk political $hit€.
You may be surprised, but I agree with him on many points, I've said it before... way back in the distant past, that I actually disagree with a lot of the climate change stuff you yourself are angered or frustrated by. I don't like hippies telling me not to have a car or to wear a hemp jumper all year round instead of heating my home. But I agree with climate scientists that we need to curb emissions and use the technologies we have to the least damaging effect.
I see the hippies as a counter-productive force, while I see those that flat out deny the effect of man on climate as (no offence) childishly selfish and very dangerous to us all, especially if they hold any political power, which thankfully, hippies don't.

Originally posted by MacSwain
I do read (and have read in past) all links you provide.

My previous post was another (obviously failed) attempt at a bit o' Shaman humor...as it appears religion is the cause celeb these days! 😳
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
[i]"and prominent [b]sceptics, including former New Scientist editor N n this statement. NS policing its own! 😏

edits: to add quotes and other stupid bits[/b]

[/i]He retired back in the sixties, long before the current hype, to pursue his writing career.

I still don't agree with a lot of what he says, but at least he makes you think. Seriously, check him out. Maybe it'll demonstrate that New Scientist is not the "bible" suggested, but may actually be a balanced source. (They do exist!)

Originally posted by agryson
No worries, I'm a bit tetchy maybe, have had this atheist nut embarrassing atheists everywhere getting on my nerves.
But you may be interested nonetheless in Nigel Calder. He was the chief editor of New Scientist about ten years ago and now is one of the more respected and vocal AGW sceptics (in fairness, a lot of AGW sceptics are pretty politically motiva ...[text shortened]... ous to us all, especially if they hold any political power, which thankfully, hippies don't.

I know of whom you speak. I had a brief encounter once myself, luckily another joined in and I was able to exit the side door. LOL Gives new meaning to irrational…oui? btw…I am never angered by debates, if I get too enthused in a response it is never intentional, in fact I find them highly entertaining and sometimes enlightening. The only thing to raise my ire is when someone intentionally miss-quotes, that cannot be left to stand.

I am happy to hear you admit you actually consider facts from opposing views. You seem well versed on GW, so much so it appears to be a fixation if not an outright religion. 🙂 As said before, I try to review all data without regard to obvious bias. Conclusions can be affected accordingly on whether data is given a micro or macro view or whether the Socratic or Hegelian dialectic method was used in study of those factors. Is the effort only to attempt to disprove or open to possibility of synthesis?

In this thread I have presented factors whose coalescing could create GW: Atlantic Conveyor, earth’s axis tilt and earth's orbit ellipse. I find it intellectually incomprehensible that man-made CO2 alone is the culprit. Especially since nature continuously produces 30 times more CO2 than man, plus water vapor (almost entirely nature generated) is known to be the major greenhouse gas. In fact when water vapor is allowed into the greenhouse gas equation, then all other greenhouse gases combined (including CO2) produce only 2 per cent of the greenhouse effect.

Let me predict your response, it will invoke the proverbial “models.” Please, its not that I reject them out of hand, it’s just that I think about it this way: Suppose tomorrow a world-wide announcement was made that anthropogenic GW was non-existent, how many study groups would have their government funding revoked the following day? I don't have a specific number, however the numbers of unemployed scientists would be cataclysmic. That is why I believe the models will never be “allowed” to show any different result at this point, due to self-preservation. Therefore, how can one place a significant level of trust in them.

Originally posted by MacSwain
In this thread I have presented factors whose coalescing could create GW: Atlantic Conveyor, earth’s axis tilt and earth's orbit ellipse. I find it intellectually incomprehensible that man-made CO2 alone is the culprit. Especially since nature continuously produces 30 times more CO2 than man, plus water vapor (almost entirely nature generated) is known to b ...[text shortened]... r greenhouse gases combined (including CO2) produce only 2 per cent of the greenhouse effect.

There are a lot of positive feedback mechanisms related to increasing CO2 concentration in the atmosphere, one of which is increased water vapour concentration.
Nature does produce more CO2 than mankinds activities, yet most of the CO2 we release is adding CO2 into the biosphere as a whole (fossil fuels and deforestation), hence the increase of atmospheric CO2 since the industrial revolution.

Your calculation is a little off - you assume that the relationship between total greenhouse gasses and their relative effects are linear (there's little water vapour in the stratosphere, and a hell of a lot of CO2, where it's most important); here's an explanation.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=220

Plus more links of interest
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/06/a-saturated-gassy-argument/
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/08/the-co2-problem-in-6-easy-steps/

Originally posted by agryson
Ok, pull the wool off of my eyes, where is the hypocrisy?
Are they telling you to give up air travel or just limit it if possible? Are they telling you not to drive cars or just suggesting a more economical model if possible? Are they telling you to stop using electricity or just try to limit electricity waste and encouraging alternative sources of generat ...[text shortened]... give up airplanes or holidays. If they were, then I would see the hypocrisy.
But they're not.

Rustle, rustle, rustle.
lse
The sound of the wool being pulled from agryson's eyes.

The whole thing could be done over the internet, if all that was to come of the conference was that they would tell us to "limit it if possible" then they would be hypocrites. The difference with other conferences is that people attending them are not so dishonest as to be saying one thing and doing another, not so two faced. But what comes from these things is not simply 'people shouldn't do this or that' or 'people should do that or this' it's all about regulation, it's 'people must be made to do this or that' and while they don't say stop flying they do say 'you will be fined for flying' (a tax is a fine for doing good, a fine is a tax for doing bad, either way there's a big stick and a grasping state's hand)


"Besides, they're all paying the same emissions charges as everyone else."

No they're not, they'll get someone else to pay their emissions charges

"There is no alternative as of yet to getting scientists all into the same place to brainstorm."

No they're not, they're a bunch of simpering parasitical bureaurats, any scientists are those that cannot make it in the real world where people deal with each other by consent.

Originally posted by Wajoma
(a tax is a fine for doing good, a fine is a tax for doing bad)

Brilliant! Absolutely brilliant! Did you concoct it yourself? May I use this bit in future?

Originally posted by Wajoma
Rustle, rustle, rustle.
lse
The sound of the wool being pulled from agryson's eyes.

The whole thing could be done over the internet, if all that was to come of the conference was that they would tell us to "limit it if possible" then they would be hypocrites. The difference with other conferences is that people attending them are not so dishonest as to ...[text shortened]... ake it in the real world where people deal with each other by consent.

"The whole thing could be done over the internet"
No, it couldn't, no more than trade talks can. Same reasons, networking is still best done seeing the whites of someones eyes. Besides, they're scientists, we generally live in basements, and get one holiday every two three years... which we have to work at! You're going to begrudge scientists their already limited social interaction?! 😛
"saying one thing and doing another"
They're not telling anyone that they can't fly airplanes, and punitative taxes are nothing new, please don't be so coy as to blame them for the taxes your government places on you to get rid of bad habits. You were probably doing the same when they were taxing leaded petrol higher to prevent the retardation of kids. Though they are in general trying to encourage industry to change its practices to reduce the impact of airflight on the environment... Virgin are making great strides in this with no loss in profits as a result.
"No they're not, they'll get someone else to pay their emissions charges
"
That's like saying your boss pays for your groceries. Don't be silly.

Originally posted by MacSwain
I know of whom you speak. I had a brief encounter once myself, luckily another joined in and I was able to exit the side door. LOL Gives new meaning to irrational…oui? btw…I am never angered by debates, if I get too enthused in a response it is never intentional, in fact I find them highly entertaining and sometimes enlightening. The only thing to raise ...[text shortened]... , due to self-preservation. Therefore, how can one place a significant level of trust in them.

I'll opt for fixation... 😛
I don't quote models, never have, I don't like computers, spend too long arguing with them. The small level of CO2 thing is dealt with in the... you know what I'm going to say anyway...
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11638
http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf
Basically that human effects have increased CO2 in the atmosphere from 300ppm to 380ppm, that's a 21% increase, not 2%, though only 4% of emissions are us, other activities reduce soak up, causing the 21% rise you see.
Look at this graph (here comes the science bit, a la L'Oreal)...
http://environment.newscientist.com/data/images/ns/cms/dn11638/dn11638-3_550.jpg
Now ignore the projections (and hence the models) the point measurements, actual data points, tell their own story...

Originally posted by agryson
"The whole thing could be done over the internet"
No, it couldn't, no more than trade talks can. Same reasons, networking is still best done seeing the whites of someones eyes. Besides, they're scientists, we generally live in basements, and get one holiday every two three years... which we have to work at! You're going to begrudge scientists their already ...[text shortened]... harges
"
That's like saying your boss pays for your groceries. Don't be silly.

On the one hand you say stop politicizing this, when that is exactly what it is, they're going to try and dream up less of an abortion than kyoto to follow on from the abortion that is kyoto protocol. So it's not 10 000 scientists getting together to brainstorm (which could be done via the net) it's 10 000 politically motivated parasites trying to ensure that their taxpayer funded junkets don't come to an end.

rustle rustle (the sound of wool being pulled from A's eyes) tock tock tock (the sound of the wool being fixed to his forehead with carpet tacks)

I said "No they're not, they'll get someone else to pay their emmissions charges"

You said "That's like saying your boss pays for your groceries. Don't be silly"

I say you have not even the most basic understanding of the word "consent" which you have conveniently omitted. My relationship with my boss is one of mutual voluntary exploitation. It is the voluntary exchange of value for value. The collection of ticks, fleas and tapeworms descending on Bali cannot claim the same.

Originally posted by Wajoma
On the one hand you say stop politicizing this, when that is exactly what it is, they're going to try and dream up less of an abortion than kyoto to follow on from the abortion that is kyoto protocol. So it's not 10 000 scientists getting together to brainstorm (which could be done via the net) it's 10 000 politically motivated parasites trying to ensure that their taxpayer funded junkets don't come to an end.

Yes, and the medical community are holding back cures for cancer so they still get funding.